← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/13090/2013disposed

Punam Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2024-09-30Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13090 of 2013 ====================================================== Punam Devi, W/O Shashi Bhushan Prasad, Permanent Resident Of VillageMabbi Belona, P.S- Sadar Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Director I.C.D.S. Bihar, Patna.

3.

District Magistrate- Cum- Collector, Darbhanga. 4.

District Program Officer, Darbhanga.

5.

Child Development Project Officer, Darbhanga, Gramin, DistrictDarbhanga. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, AC to GP 26 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-09-2024 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned AC to GP 26 for the State.

2. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Ammerbi & Ors. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 681, wherein, it has been held that there is no straitjacket formula that all the employees, who fall under the purview of Article- 12 of the Constitution would be government employees. Similarly, only because the State controls the Integrated Child Development Services (I.C.D.S.) Programme, its employees cannot take shelter under Article-

Patna High Court CWJC No.13090 of 2013(4) dt.30-09-2024 2/2 311 of the Constitution that in any manner, the selection process has not taken place in accordance with law.

3. It is further made clear that in the State of Bihar, the guidelines in respect of 'Anganwari Sevika and Sahaikaa', cannot be said to have been enacted in accordance with Article309 of the Constitution and the procedure followed as per the requirement of Article-311 of the Constitution necessitates in case of the 'Anganwari Sevika'.

4. I find that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. The petitioner, however, may avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Sanjay/- U